and to attempt to go beyond that, i think in trying to -- i hesitated to say this. it seems so unlikely. in trying to find some common ground on a range of domestic issues because that's the thing that will have the greatest influence abroad that the still has what it used to have. and which doesn't look like it does now. we are moving along. i have two more questions for them. i want to turn to you and get one or two questions or maybe three in quickly from the audience before we go back in the next thing. it will be on the theme of american decline and american influence. if you have a question, that's half baked in your mind. you have another seven minutes to bake it. tom, i think jessica's assessment makes a lot of sense. it seemed infused with hope.

[laughter] in the context of the political situation that we're likely to face in the country. based on what you believe is possible in terms of 2013, what can the president do if nick? -. >> well, let me name a couple of points. one is that i start from the position of being something of a america nationalist. i believe america place unbalanced constructive role in the world. if we are weak end at home. the kids won't grow up in a different america. they are grow up in fundamentally -- that the united states provide. we are per expect we can't see perfect. we have brought enormous amount of public goods. your kids will grow up in a different world. and so that's what i've been to cussed on on than what are the source of our strength and how

we new them. you can't renew those sources of strength without some kind of political comprise. now i would argue that we're actually two decisions two big decisions away from a melted up in the american economy. if we get a decision on the grand bargain, the kind of ten year time frame we would manage the cut and spending and tax increases and in investments, we need do all three. we need to tax, cut, and invest in the source of our strength. i think that would have a huge effect. i think americans today feel in many ways like children of two divorced parents. i think it's a pal in the country in a lot of ways. it would be huge. if we got a grand bargain on energy how to exploit the boundary of -- i think the two together would have a huge impact. so the question is how close are we to that?

and, you know, i have a saying about the middle east which applies to the american politics. all important politics happens the morning after the morning after. >> when is that? >> here i'm talking about the election. here i think the question really is i don't know how the election is going come out. i make no prediction. i ask myself if romney gets smashed, if he gets smashed, it would -- i happen to think the political problem in the country we have a center left party and we have a far right party. that is a structure problem. the republican party has gone nuts in my view. >> analytical judgment. [laughter] >> they've been simultaneously they have been at war with mas and physics at the same time. [laughter] on the deficit, it was, you know, deficit doesn't matter. and yeah and biology too a guy

in missouri too. so the question to me is what happens the morning after the morning after the election if romney loses? the morning after they'll say it wasn't because he wasn't far night enough. i wonder the morning after the morning after. a lot of people say we have gone too far to the right. we need a different republican party. we need a center right republican party. i think the country needs. because it needs to be a check on the left and the center left, and it's the only way we're going get big comprises on the big issues. >> can i add, i mean, a little history can clinton and rage. the second term was the productive term. the big achievement. it's hard no know whether the republican party will -- where they will push the blame if that happens. but the question is how they decide to spend the next four years. and i think it's very hard to tell. but there is some hope in

looking back at both clinton and reagan. >> reagan was considered a far-right lunatic running a far right republican party, by the way, at the time. by whoever the equivalent was at the time. maybe it was tom freedman. in fact he wasn't. >>, i mean, life is more complicated despite the analogy. >> he raced. he raised taxes when he needed to . >> he did a lot of things and, you know, that's why i think parties in opposition tend to be less responsible than parties in power. i think you probably agree with that. >> what's different. >> difference in agreeing from your point of view. i can think of times when the other party also behavedder responsely in the opposition and the question is, it seems to me is if romney's elected you have the party that was, you know, that you think was irresponsible is now in a position they actually have to governor and we'll see what happens with that and that generally tends paul parties forward the center.

no matter what. the way the left is unhappy with obama in many republicannings because if you would have the democratic opposition. if obama wins the second term that's going to be the interesting question. and i'm optimistic because my reading of history is different from jessica. we have absolutely mispartisan and misgridlocked many times throughout the history. you know, in the 19th century people were buried and said democrat and republican on the tombstone. the newspaper were democratic newspapers and republican. i know, you remember the tariff dispute. there was tremendous deadlock. it took decades to get out of it. and the way the american system is worked it's designed to create. i wish i could say it's dysfunctionalty. i think the system is dined to create it. when you think the kettle is about to blow, sometimes although not all the times we had a civil war because we couldn't solve the problems. but often there is a coming

together. and actually am optimistic that we'll see greater sanity in dealing with the issues inspect the years to come. >> let me ask one thing to follow up. we may also had a unusual period of a cold war, which really pushed both parties to the center. and now that has been loose end, basically the end of the cold war in the way we wanted. this is the normal, as bob said, i'm ready . >> we all -- we have to grow. a [inaudible] >> eastbound immediate an assumption here on tipped thundershower hat to an assumption one particular outcome in the election which is the president gets reelected. the second term. you mention briefly there was a possibility of romney might be elected. let's talk about that a second. though the reciprocally -- [laughter] >> good thing i'm here.

[laughter] >> and i think everybody greens with that. >> but -- [laughter] in terms of the issue of american instance, do you think that the president romney would handle things, do things have and impact an 0 american influence that was different from president obama was doing? >> well, i mean, unfortunately for answering the question, my basic thesis there's a tremendous degree of continuity between presidents. we already saw and jessica and i have a running discussion about this. i was going say argument which it's not. >> treatment. >> which began around january 2009. many people have been struck. the nighttimes "new york times" the continue -- any president in my view only changes things, you know, ten degrees one way. ten degrees the other. there will be some issues, obviously, you know, there was no question that romney takes a

different view on how deal with russia and you see a different policy toward russia. on iran it's a hard call. one thing we haven't spoken about. maybe you were going get to it. >> we are twenty five minutes in to this. okay since i consider to be a not unreasonable possibility regardless who was in the white house that the united states might wind up whether it was a desire or has no choice in engaging in military action in iran. what is it going to do to the consensuses about spending or the american people interested in foreign policy and even issues like the defense budget? and that's why issues like that and the onces we don't know about that make me wary of all these straight line projections we're make in the future based on what things look like right now. >> anyone want to address the point? >> which point? >> the point about . >> pick on any of the points. i meant the point about iran and the likely hood we would enter

in to military action there regardless of who wins. [inaudible] >> question from the audience? >> yes, sir. front row. >> microphone approaching you from the left. governor romney said he wants to create 12 million jobs during his term, that's 250,000 jobs a month. in the past, the u.s. has always been an exporter. and that was what created jobs. how do you see his promise of creating 12 million jobs in four years? >> unlikely. [laughter] >> okay. that's one view. anybody want to elaborate on that? >> look, i think we are in a completely different, you know,

job market. we're about -- a few weeks during the convention which is bill clinton lineback in 1990 if you work hard and play by the rules you should expect to be in the american middle class. it's basically what he's been saying. obama repeated it. and i just don't think that's na. i don't think it's political. you have work harder, study harder, learn and relearn faster and reinvent the rule naps is because we are in a very different work environment technology is making older jobs outdate faster and spin off new jobs. and they each one requires more education. and i just think if we're going it i think america is a huge advantage in the world. because the i think the world is going to be divided going forward between high imagination and enabling countries and low imagination enabling country.

rethe highest imagination enabling country in the world. if you have spark of an idea you can go to delta in taiwan they'll design it. they'll get you a cheap chinese manufacture. amazon will gift wrap it for christmas. free lancer get the logo. they are commodities except this. that's no country that does better. the problem with this though, the days will ford will move to your job with 25,000 person factory is over. it's 2500 people and a lot of robots and you know the old joke, the modern factory of the future is two employees, a man and the dog. the man is there to feed the dog and the dog there to keep the man away from the machines. generating 12 million nor jobs maybe it's possible only going to be possible if we once again get everyone starting

something. so it worries me about romney is you can make any projection. but i think we really, really need to rethink the workplace, education, and how we become a truly start up nation. >> let he add something quick to that. in the last 35 years, 80% of the household in the country have lost ground economically. 80%. and for almost all of them, in that period went from one income to two income as women entered the work force. that has a psychology effect that is enormous. it doesn't really get confronted in this campaign in those stark terms. but that's -- and i think that -- at least i would say the greatest strength of the american economy and the american culture has been that we have been the best at adapting to change. and adapting to rapid change and

internalizing and changing. i think this fact of three plus decades of having lost ground economically makes people fear the future instead of embracing it. when you fear the future, then that adaptability goes and that is why i would say that one of the big ways in which we have changed in which we are weaker than we have been. >> it's one little -- final thought on that. one thing that surprised me in the last cycle of recession and great recession. there hasn't been more talk of protectionism. that gives me a little hope that both parties realize that the kind of 1930s solution to retraction of your economy is really worse than what you would otherwise do, and . >> isn't it true the republican

candidates right now running on a hardline against china and taking tough stand against china. it's actually a switch and that you actually have the republican party taking tougher line on trade. >> clinton did do when he ran. that's the pattern typically. there may be some specific that need to be pursued. the broader political system is not generating incentives for either political party to use this as a big issue. and i think that that puts us in a position to have a more forward-looking agenda of investment and looking at these things. tom talks about the kinds of jobs in the 21 tion century that requires adaptation to be able to . >> one more question and i'll goat back of the room. one more quick question before we return to the cycle. >> earth from the brookings. one of the key components of

power international power is the perception of power. and there have been some recent polls, mainly europe, mainly china that leaders in the country perceive our power to be less. and when leaders and countries think our power is less, we have less power. so how does that relate to the point you made earlier? >> well. >> the chinese go through this cycle, i don't blame them. we go through it if decides the united states is the decline. they made the strategic judgment three times over the past 25 years only to find themselves surprised. there isn't even a discussion within the chinese strategic community. adopt get carried with it. the americans don't go down as easily as you imagine. they are usually derived from a american self-perception and, you know, if i were sitting outside the world and i saw what our economy was and i saw all

the talk in the united states about how we're in deline. i would come to that conclusion too. what remains the case if you're not talking about the chinese or western european. i think it's more important than that. you ask me what is important. it is striking to me whatever the perception may be. how many countries on the -- of china how much countries in the persian gulf in the middle east. how many countries in eastern europe and around russia are continued to look to the united states for strategic and other kinds of support? they have not decided there's nothing there's no one home there. we have seen over the past couple of years the country of southeast asia, many of them, not to mention, korea, japan, india, australia, turning to the united states as they raise their concerns about china. to me, that is a voting with your feet. in a way. and it's more important than

whatever the polls are saying. >> i would like to ask a question to followup. today i read in the paper that the turkish government has agreed to give a billion dollars to the egyptian government. i thought it was an interesting twist in things. i think it's clear the egyptian feel maybe the american money isn't going come. maybe there isn't the money. that's going change the influence. in that part of the world engagement is the proof or the disprove of the the sis that is involved here. you scrolled a situation next year or the year after at some point where ron iran says we have a nuclear weapon. the united states hasn't gone in or taken military action to stop it. do you think it u would be fundamentally damage together united states perception of power and leadership in the world not being able to write checks is damaging the perception in the world we understand played. >> that was too hypothetical for me.

seriously, there's so many steps in there. >> it's just one. >> the united states doesn't top iran from getting a nuclear weapon, does that san diego message that we are incapable of controlling outcomes in a way that some people think we might have in the past through military action? >> my own feeling is that i think there's a still a reasonable chance that a bargain will be struck with iran. and so i think it will require a creditable threat of force. i don't think you will get iran's freangs that not from israel but from the united states. there is still the possibility of deal. i don't know what happens after, i mean, you know, again i think that ,you know, when i look at the world i just came from china, and i think china is headed really difficult decade, you know. i was there when do you deng

xiaoping disappeared. i would like to say one fifty of the humidity disappeared for two weeks and nobody could say he had a cold. okay. that's unnerving. okay. you know what is china today? it's an authoritarian state with 500 million microbloggers. all right. -- [inaudible] reforms in china for the first time in chinese leader in a two many two-way conversation with the people. and -- where bob and i disagree is that i don't doubt at all that the world loves us, needs us, and wants us. most of the world more than ever. you open the american embassy and it'll stretch for miles. my focus is simply making sure we're doing the right things to

keep us there and deliver on the promise. the great thing that america has is the power of emlation. they need transaction or bullying. we can lead through emulation. >> i don't know how you did that. let me take a shot. it was clear he was going there. i was going there because i haven't figured out iran yet. you can ask somebody else. [laughter] >> i think the -- i think the answer is that it depends how it. has and what the surrounding context of the possible deal is. i think the president has made it may be politically smart. i think it's a terrible mistake to say that containment is impossible and unacceptable

because i don't think it is. you know, in truth. that means there is and there also as we know from the discussion of all this these silly redlines discussions are there is quite possibly an iranian nuclear capability that becomes weapon niced. all right. which probably the most likely outcome. so and a deal could be embedded thatceps that in a potentially noninjured not proliferation regime. i was about to say stronger. it's probably not going to be stronger. it could be noninjured. and in those conditions, the ants to your question -- and the

u.s. will certainly has been the lead actor in making it all come together. so are we seen as -- inevitably weaker if iran has nuclear capability that is not weapon weaponized the answer is no. >> okay. let's go to the next slide that talks about the international order. it's relevant to what jessica just said. she provided us with a segue. we're talking about the liberal international order. we're talking about international institutions. john has written the most serious threat to american national security today is not as specific enemy but the erosion of the institutional foundation of the global order that the united states has commanded for half a century. so he sees the constitutions of the global order is being essential to the strength. jessica has written, our infrastructured, gridlocked politics is having a major impact abroad on other countries

perceptions of u.s. influence and power. and of course, on the desire account of the u.s. example. taking the first of these, bob, and the challenge that is posed the use in terms of influence by the strength or lack of strength or current state of international institutions, what do you see out there that worries you in terms of the institutional structure in the world order right now? >> well, yawn and i have a -- john and i have old say subtle argument about this in the sense that my view is that . >> this is no place for subtle. >> i know. i'm going try to move past it as quickly as possible. [laughter] but, you know, i have -- john believes the institutions can exist independent of american power ultimately if they are set up correctly. an i i believe there are general a function of american power. i do worry and here's where i

don't have a disagreement. i worry about the liberal world order and whether the some of the things that uphold the order are in fact of the state of erosion. one of the things we which we may be looking at which is the no the picture anyone has grappled with. what if the united states is not decline but the institutions of liberal order are. and you look around the world and you see the european union, which will i think will be get out of it. you could be pessimistic about the future of the european union. you could say to the u.n. security counsel has back in to a or really a sis, you could look at the international trading environment and wonder about that. to me, and this is the answer to your question. i think john and i would agree, a world in which the united states is still strong but the institutions eroding is not a world i want to live in. and therefore the united states does have an interest in trying the best to shore up the

institutions. >> sublg subtly agree. >> bob is coming i way. >> way to ruin it, john. >> here's a couple of quick point. number one, my thesis is not institutions are infeint. they infused with power. they are used to power. it they are used to signal limit on power. mower is divorced from institutions. and in that regard, i argue that the u.s. has been brilliant on the world stage for half a century or longer. it has tide the power to the institutions that both allowed it to make the power more occur able and expansive but also making it more delimited and less discriminated in the arbitrary use of power. there is an argument about how institutions can allow for a powerful state to more influential by allowing to signal the own restraint. the couple more points about this.

my underlying argument about the liberal world order is we are shifting from one that was organized around try lateral world. the u.s. with germany and japan is partners are kind of trilateral system. in that sense with even when the united states was all powerful. it had parter ins. they were western or tide to the united states in a special way. the new array of powers are of more far flung. the good news most of them are liberal, capitalist, and democratic. the u.s. accomplishment is partly an accomplishment about creating a world spreading a type of political economy that has become more global. the bad news is that it has created a more chaotic system in some sense, we have succeeded all to well. and that the governance institution which were built for the trilateral world are not suited for the multilateral world.

and that means, as i said before an agenda of new before begans with new states, refurbishing the institution. the europeans will have less authority and voting. united states will have to fbi way in various sites of authority institutional authority. and so that is a what i think is the future of renegotiating the liberal world order. but again the up fundamental point is that most of the countries rising up are rising up precisely because they are in it. they want to be in it. and the trade that comes from open pes and the rules that provides rising statementses protections against precisely what we were talking about before. arbitrary and discriminate power. i think there are new constituencies for liberal order. they have to be brought to the table and have to be given respect and the kind of level playing field that you associate with liberal international

order. >> there are two dimensions to this that strike me as potentially worrisome. i would like to frame them and jessica and tom respond. one we look at the -- [inaudible] international institutions and we scrolled some cause for concern. right, global warming is an issue within the institution that were created to deal with it have come up short thus far. international trade, the wto, certainly seems to have been overtaken by events in many respects and is not able to deal with them in clearly in the context of ntp we have new problems in nuclear proliferation that seems to be beyond the reach of mechanism the united nations security counsel has not been able to get the arms around syria. the institutions seem to to be having problems at beginning of the administration there was a lot of talk about the g20 for mechanism of dealing with global economic crisis.

we drifted away from the 0. it's complicated. we do it on phone calls and the back rooms the way it was done. the institutions are weak. then there's the component you introduced in the comment here, in terms of the united states. it's not just glid locked politicking. it's also referencing something tom said the united states had some power in the institutions because of the example the principle it is unupheld after the financial crisis, the french, the germans, the chinese said that's it for the u.s. it's a clearly a corrupt system and they're not managing the system in terms of obama came in and said i'm going handled international things differently. i'm going to respect international law. we probably violated the sovereignty with drones and covert action than we did under brush and there's a whole new set of questions there. i could -- the list could go on it seems like we have problems with the institution and we have problems with our ability to

lead within the institution. i was wondering what your reaction to one or both of the issues. one is a generally statement. i agree with the ideas to win. you know, the power the soviet unions were strong. when the soviet union was strong and the idea of liberal internationalism will be strong as we can prove by example. the world of social networking which is the em emulation is hugely a powerful force in the world. ..

and the whole number of rather meaningful things are done. the international criminal court . the key of the treaty. the land that -- antipersonnel landmines ban, small arms agreement. all of them were done with the u.s. voting exam. and the votes were like 178 to one and one pattern 46 with 18. those kinds of votes. in the u.s. was the only democracy with the exception of an drolen tip of israel and india that voted no the counters

overflowing with this -- >> kindred spirits. >> yeah. so there is a momentum and the serbs a lot of issues that doesn't require ask all but there are also i many cases, and climate is truly one of the where we're on this 600-pound gorilla. at think this gets back to the discussion we have before the weather is continuity of discontinuity. at it as a profound this, nobody and likely to be also if governor robb is elected again in the united states attitude toward international

institutions and in particular tour of the diplomacy can be problem-solving. you have to remember moon that the kind rhetoric that came out of this country in the bush years about that the u.s. should unambiguously embrace its imperial, currently an adviser. john bolton said, and i wrote this one down, it's a big mistake to grant a billeted in national law but because of a long-term goal of the incident that international law means anything and as you want to constrain the u.s. >> this is our former ambassador to the u.n. >> and another adviser to governor romney.

>> i say this to make a partisan statement, but it is different. we spend years in the bush years talking about an imperial for the united states. empire means you have a power above the rules that makes rules are ready else. * not what this war of this. it is not ever going to work. and so i think with in the united states that can solve its domestic problems and recapture a sense that it is an example worth emulating although they have not nearly as strong as the root like them to be, there is hope and strength to move into

an isolationist direction to move away from spending money and writing checks for international institutions, to move toward taking care our own business. look at president obama and his strategy with regard said drones and covert operations. it's very exceptional is the. is in this exceptional as the impulse something that could actually be more extreme in the

next several years? >> i was with you right up until the end because exceptional rosamund isolationism are two different things. exceptional some can be the engine for imperial foreign policy. is the sense that america has a special role to play, of his income is back to the founding of the nation that leads to a tremendous amount of global activity. >> i was saying about those linked. >> let me be upon the first part of your premise. rahway's and isolationist nation we tell ourselves the smith. we sit here minding our business and people do things to us are there are evil people who hijack our foreign policy. the truth is the as states was not an isolationist power. we started off as a strip of lightly inhabited colonies along the coast of the atlantic and

steadily for roughly 400 years expanded our word. if you want to call that an isolationist nation, don't really think that's true. this is why i don't really worry about that. we had one clear isolationist with regard to your preferable or one. thankfully relentless and. >> grosso before world war one. >> no, we warn. >> recently had no desire. >> at least if you want to make this argument yet to talk about the 31898 time. >> in terms of semantics of thing we can get bogged down. jurors rushed to the thomas jefferson talked about for entitlement. it didn't consider what happens to be foreign. there's a bit of a difference between -- >> we will work partial republic. we basically were expensive and we have always been expensive. what i've been hearing now, every ticket america is about to

head off into an isolationist he's. this is the first time. this was a consignment of the end of the cold war. minicassette yes. we don't need to be involved in the world. packed the of september 11th and of for a because of that of course we want to deal with our own problems now where we focus of a recession, but lose someone is already points haven't worked on the cover and protectionist the reader now withdrawn. president obama is talking about making morgan is that we've had the past. at the see any push back. and so overwhelmingly impossible others of the is the home when. >> the netting states is still the most powerful country on life and of the dead heard

anything that suggests any of the country may have your material can abilities -- the united states has the cd capacity and is able to assess its interests with shaping the international baronet. it can have the geopolitical status. >> as a purely political manner. the far right, the high point, pat buchanan bellwether percentage of and has not been another person in their profit party -- president ron paul has not occurred yet. the nominee has entered. every single one of again this to my crazy in five different

ways. an award of the record here. there was no isolationist serious candidate and a republican party, accepting bets over been. >> the sunny have a question to her. >> university of maryland. important for the added states to abide by international law? is there a way that the united states could use military force against the nuclear part term without u.n. approval and be in compliance with international law? >> ticket. and don't want to be droning on and on. >> the net is that it's bad, you can go through a lot of presidents going back to including bill clinton the took military action in kosovo.

pereira well, america as a very ambivalent attitude toward international law. of the are in some respects the greater spokesman for international, but throughout our history in the cold war and even from the fact of we found of the united nations we have been among the most persistent ignores of the international law at the same time. it's always, and partly because we have this exceptional view of the laws are for everybody parks a bad thing that is damaging to her status and credibility crisis seems to me he turned to save in one sense is to create a

world order womb that we've been like a run-up most powerful country one. them loans really relevant here is preemption which is recognized as evidence in and and and one. allen is not his invention and the difference has to do with the immense of threat. if there were clear evidence some one that era on loss widened eyes hidden in a legitimate act of pre-emption stockman and been lou wall with

one caught -- if it were in new distanced from the threat and if that there were uncertain or wrong bonds than you have a whole different deal. one of the many really terrible things about the war which renounce the country decided to a slip into oblivion of trying to land lessons from, would it it was down on the basis of an entirely legitimate legal basis which was prevention. that is something that has the standing and international law and which has been a surplus of the rejected by many of our great presidents, eisenhower, kennedy, lincoln. so i think that is the -- is going to be the deciding flying.

>> one more quick question from the back. one. >> outran ask this quickly. on with the university of central florida. the question i asked is about global standing. you made the point if we go back to the cagey reference and about research and development. it for looking at the dangers presented about the military, it's really not about our innovation capacity because our economic and terminal national security is operative our villages innovate. so if we are not doing that are making those investments card be telegraphing to the other nations that we're vulnerable?

>> we have 25 minutes to go. a just want everybody to know that. so the you want to take this? >> a very important point. all i can say is we are in an age where all new jobs to the economy in the last, i don't know what five or ten years have come from start-ups, new companies. it's something that we are uniquely positioned as a country to promote and there is no secret to how we did it. we attracted the world's best minds. we created the right infrastructure, education, legal incentives, and we pushed out the boundaries of biology and chemistry and physics and math in ways that led to all these amazing new companies. i still thinkable happen because i think one of the great strengths of our country, it's

so flexible that its poll of people who just did get the word it did not get the word that china bleeder breakfast, germany will eat our lunch. they just go out and start stuff which is the greatest thing about our country, we need to be doing this at a scale because of the nature of work that i just don't think we have been to before. i was talking to a guy yesterday who just finished with this point. building a new hotel for one of the big chains going to these low end market hotels. now low wind, but just more simple kind of structure and operation. and actually, so lake city airport. and these hotels, the front desk is actually also the starbucks and the breakfast counter. the same person who checks u.n. gets you your coffee and danish. and that is just as simple everyone is looking to do more things with fewer people.

therefore instead of 25,000 person, britney 50 people creating jobs. i think it is going to require the really different approach to the economy. we have education here. the two are connected. we have to completely. in an ideal world that is what the connection might be about. romney's few. it's not. but some are elated that is what we're going to have to go to. >> the last of questions. it talks about new actors in the rise of china. you might also characterize it as the emergence of new competitors, new rivals, both in terms of economics and our. tom rowe in his last book china is even the most of its authoritarian as some.

by contrast we're getting only 50 percent of the potential benefits from our first-rate democratic system. john brokaw might be possible for a chance to overtake the united states alone, but it is much less likely if china will ever managed to overtake the west in order. i would like to go to you on that and then open the sub. >> i have always thought that the discussion of u.s.-chinese relations amidst the fact that china is not just facing the united states, but the larger system which we have been talking about tonight. that larger system is huge, and it is -- it has liberal characteristics. it has realistic geopolitical characteristics because it is filled with alliances, not just institutions of trade. andy is constituted of the -- pile world of liberal democracy this.

and so china faces a much more formidable international order. if you think are rising state lifting a, pasteurizing states of the modern era have faced one military state or several, but not the kind of kick closest of that is in effect the oecd world i think china is not going to be able to do to a world what the united states had the opportunity to do in the 20th-century several times which is to say really recreating international order. also of the message came to power during the nuclear era with the electorate will not be a great power war. it's always been an ingredient that has demolished the old order and pave the way for are rising state.

china will have the incentive. as we suggested, china is halfway in this order. united nations security council permanent member. it is embedded even the increasingly with even a regional economy and regional institutions. so china faces an international order that is easy joining hard to overturn. i don't think we will have a repeat of what is the classic problem of world politics, the probe to the power transition

responded the way that we call balancing against. so the importance thing, i

think, to shape how china rises is to have china sea that it is the pathway to a peaceful rice that will take place within this word that the united states has helped build but no longer owns as the simple state that has run the system. china has reasons not to experience the problem of self encirclement. if it is important for the united states and its allies to have mechanisms in place so that china should choose to a want to signal restraint in accommodation it will have the tools to do so. >> one of the things that seems to actually be countervailing some of the transit were talking about earlier which is u.s. decline, the fact that here is china, our bridges to the biggest potential rival, and they seem really ambivalent. early on in this administration and the crisis, of talk about g

to. we don't want to be involved in that kind of world. even though they played no role in the context of the planned talks it was kind of like, we want to go slower than you. it's not necessarily a leading role. even though i think china was for the first time involved in a central role in the mideast issue with regard, one of the things that developments have demonstrated is that china does not want to get that involved. it does not want to play a hands-on role and they may not be ready for prime time. we may be a little bit weaker, but in terms of all of the of potential rivals, they are not doing so well either. >> i would agree with that. at think that what strikes me about china -- i was just there, and this trip more than ever, china is a really low trust society.

can is a really bad thing. trust is the key component to innovation. i don't trust my intellectual property to be protected.

and to meet debt is what is really shaping so much of the behavior and an interdependent world. this is the point i made yesterday. your friends can kill you so much faster than your enemies. if greece collapses or pulls out of the european union everyone in this room will be affected, and your arrival is falling. if china's growth goes from 8% to 2% we have a real problem. the whole world does. and so for me -- and i think this whole movement connected, it all happened under the guise of the sub prime crisis and post september 11th. i don't think we fully absorbed it. i am not naive.

i understanding history. rising powers. i think china will be so internally consumed unless they don't worry. on the scale of things i do worry about, i were much more about their collapsed and their rice. >> one of the best ways to take people's minds off of problems at home is military ventures abroad. as hyper connected as -- of course, you're right. part of that in china is the growth of there. virulence nationalism. and so the tensions that are wrong with japan, you know, i taught china learned its lesson in 2010. it has come back if vice who. what we may be seeing are early signs of our national interests being bigger than they used to be. >> china indicates it is facing a lot of big problems.

by one estimate by 2016 the difference in wages will be $0.7 an hour. that is producing and stability. we tend to overstate things. we tend to view things too much in the context of the moment and not take as new ones to view as we can. i wonder if the problem with some of these big emerging powers is not that they are so strong but how weak they are and what problems there likely to have. all of them face major political issues of one sort or another. all of them face and equality. none of them are used to being big, global players with the exception of the russians. we have major powers that are

also kind of toddlers in terms of being major powers and having real limitations. i wonder how that should change our view or if you even agree with that. >> i just want to take note of the american exception list attitude, but that is a typical american approach. i think -- i feel on behalf of the rest of the glow. the problem is first of all i agree that all these countries have more problems than we were saying three years ago when it was obvious that it would take over. shockingly enough they have had difficulties, but when you're talking about geopolitics and i agree with the points, china is in a race between the most rational approach to there

current situation and less rational approach. twenty-first century and 19th century china that thinks territory is what matters. who flies the flag over taipei is what is important. that is the 19th century had to come and they have basic classic attitudes toward the growth of their power. attributes which the united states exhibited at the end of the 19th century, germany's a bit which is exactly what jessica said. we have more power, want to be recognized. and so what our problem is, and it will not be easy to predict. a million reasons why china should not be flexing muscles. look how many countries in the past have made that same error. this book in 1910 talking about how irrational it was for these great powers to go to war.

for years before they went to war. and so that is why i guess when i think about the american role, we will not predict the future, should not be in a panic, but we do have to do what is possible to discourage them from taking the wrong course and encouraged them to take the right course which is why basically be consistent policy of this administration and many previous has been right. there is an element of containment -- containment or hedging that says we will back up these countries if you push too hard. we also to welcome you into this international system under the terms the happen to be -- i need telling other countries what is in their interest, but it happens to be in their interest to rise. >> to pick up the point, if you look at china's behavior toward taiwan. it really, i think it is a contrast. for many years the relationship was marry me or will kill you.

and some of these, they just completely reverse and went to. now it is amazing. basically it absorbs taiwan. there is a tension in china. one school wants to bullion bluster. we also saw them reverse course. so either one is a possibility. >> this is one area where i think the political parties at the foreign policy operators in the two political parties mostly agree that we need to engage china and we also need to be providing counterweights and reassure our allies and create the kind of geopolitical space and weight in the region so that certain options are not available to china. but it does mean engaging china, showing china where a peaceful rise might exist, but hedged and keep our allies who want us

there but don't -- and this is where both sides, china not wanting to trigger self encirclement, at least those who are most prudent. on the american side we have an incentive not to be to crusade oriented because our allies in southeast asia don't want us to pursue a kind of old-style 19th century containment policy. so not too hot, not too cold. on the american side there is an incentive to be -- be -- be prudent and firm, but not try to turn this into a new cold war. on the chinese side they have an incentive to reassure their neighbors who are their trade partners but are all tied to the united states for security. >> i think it is worth adding, and i agree with everything that was just said. there is a profound well of mistrust between the united states and china. the basic concepts of what we

are after will be talk about arms control. interpreting the motive behind our actions. in addition to not making them the enemy we have time to a huge and difficult job in trying to chip away at this mistrust and build a clear foundation of where we understand each other when we interact. >> we only have a couple of minutes. did a quick answer from each one of you. it seems to me that the candidate who wins presidential elections typically is the most optimistic. the candidate who can portray a vision of the yen's states, that is positive and possible and that they no way to get their, it has been very interesting. it has been so negative and so absence of clear, strong, positive use.

one of the reasons this particular as -- particularly striking , the united states has car a little bit better than developing economies the bricks are struggling. we have a little bit better manufacturing numbers today than we had a week ago. unemployment is falling a little bit. we still have problems, but we have amazing opportunities. one of the biggest geopolitical developments has been that new american energy paradigm and the fact that there is available vast reserves of energy and we are making breakthroughs in terms of alternative energy, energy independence or something akin to rate or at least more energy independent is a possibility and a world where high-value added, is about you added is key. the guy here protection joy actual property has an advantage . the best schools and universities has an advantage.

talk about rasons and resurgence this is brought up by candidates and is drowned out by other things. i would likely preclude go down and get a sense of your reaction to this moment a promise. >> i am the one who says we are not in decline and things are better than people think. i wish there were more of that being said. on the other hand, we are in a political campaign. no one is supposed to say the other guy is not a disaster i think prayer are to come out of the recession and we are going to era fight our way through to a political deal that deals with all these range of economic

issues. i also think we continue to be in the most advantageous position. i would not traded. >> there is none of those things you enumerated that i would disagree with. >> go ahead anyway. >> those are all true. although, you could say, you know, he is also true that college as a teacher's -- scores have been going down. the lowest this year. but here is what really worries me. it -- there is a longitudinal poll that asks people every two years. to you believe the government in washington does what is right most or all the time. and when that question was first asked starting in 1958 through the mid 60's, 75 percent of

people said yes. there was an 18 year slide. it has stayed there in the region from 25-35% ever since. massive changes in ideology and political and everything. that means that anybody under 40 has lived their entire life in a country in which the majority of the citizens don't think the government and washington is doing the right thing. >> the country got smarter. [laughter] >> this part is serious. it is hard to imagine how you have a healthy democracy in as conditions. i don't think we do. and i don't know how you -- i mean, i have some ideas, but i don't know how you turn that around. and so i think it is all different deal to have that as

the leader and shaper of the world, international order that to have it as a 19th century country that does not have much activity. and so we have a profound problem that i don't see signs here that we're being able to it by now we have. >> i am the guy who does believe , who does worry that we are in decline who believes we have enormous potential i don't think, you know, that we get to be exceptional exceptional as it is not an honorary doctorate. egotist where for the rest of your life. i believe in the first decade of the 21st century, we did just

what are baseball did, we substituted steroids. those were called giving people did not have the skills to build houses with hammers and nails and to inject massive credit into the system for a huge consumer. we are going to have to pay for that. and we have to candidates who are not telling people the truth they do not trust the people with the truth. when they don't trust people they don't trust them back. it leaves them deeply anxious. i think people are deeply anxious it has been my view from the beginning, i was advocating a third party. we have made promises to the next generation recount possibly keep and need to raise revenue. we cannot just take it out of

spending because we also need to invest in the sources of our strength. i believe from the very beginning that a candidate who would win is the one who was first coming to the american people with the plan for economically healing the country, doing those three things don't tell me. we are going to get it all from rich people or of our spending. number one, here is the plan at the scale of the problem. what i found it deeply disappointing about this campaign is i don't see either man talking about that in the three part plan. >> when i think about the united states and the world today how properly agree with my colleagues that the domestic

house in order is the first issue, and that think of pericles, a comment during the funeral, as recorded when he said, i worry less about the strategies of my enemies than minor mistakes. it seems to me that the united states and the world today, it's really up to itself to define what kind of 21st century we will have and whether it can get its house in order and do this sort of things that entail cost-cutting and investment and finding a consensus on critical issues. then on a more international note, looking out at the next 20 years it seems to be a great challenge for american foreign policy is to make sure that at the end of this next cycle that this whole class of rising stays that we have talked about, non-western developing countries, most of whom are in the global south, brazil a great example, india as well that

those countries wise up and find a home with them this word that the united states has been so while in building in managing that the worst would be if china , a unstable authoritarian system but no less powerful, and checks the states into a geopolitical divide to media and states has in its power, the idea to imagine and the next era of world politics trying out ideas that are of american beckham back to the progressive era. the u.s. as an agent for modernization and progress, international development tools and. it means the edifice of it yet the state's, postcolonial, countries of different political traditions but nonetheless are

liberal, capitalist, and democratic. we imagine a coalition based on a new synthesis of his ideas which is all there for the taking. >> we are in this season of debate. there is going to be a debate on wednesday, the tortoise second, foreign policy debate you will hear a lot. i hope you will join me in thanking this terrific panel. [applause]

[background noises] [background noises] >> the first presidential debate wednesday night live on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org. watch and engage. coming up tonight on c-span2 house majority leader eric cantor debates his democratic challenger in virginia. that is followed by libertarian presidential candidate on obstacles facing a third-party candidate.

former congressional budget office director and economists look at the issue. >> when nation's chief and china has treated i will finally do something. the president has not been willing to do. >> we brought more cases against china and one term than the previous ministers in debt into to and we have been winning those. >> president obama and mitt romney meet in the first presidential debate.

two ways to watch the debate. the multi camera version. falling, your reactions. follow our live coverage. >> house majority leader this as his democratic challenger. this debate focuses on economic issues. the first for the seventh district. that -- this is just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you very much. let me begin with a few reminders. we are fortunate enough to have

ts we will covering this event and want to let everyone know about that. [applause] secondly, both candidates have asked everyone in their room to turn their cell phones off. not buzzing competing, or ringing, but please have them off. third after each question we view -- please hold your applause until the end of the debate. we are just going to take time if we have to wait for a pause after the end of every question a matter how get the answer might be. a little bit now about the actual format. we begin and end with three minute closing statements by each candid, and those the order which has been determined by conflict. after the opening statement i will ask a set of questions top each candid.

the opening question will go to a candidate who has to wednesday answer. there will be a 2-minute response followed up by one minute rebuttal by the candidate to whom the question was originally directed. after those three questions that canada will have the opportunity ask each other when question and the same time will be allocated. we will then conclude with a set of questions that i will ask once more as a moderator. i will note that the questions i will be asking have been generated in terms of theme by the business community. i treat them a little the for the purpose of the debate, but they come from the business community. police now join me. we are going to introduce both candid and please welcome congressman eric cantor. [applause]

>> thank you pair his lanky. and now his challenger, mr. wayne howell. [applause] [applause] we began with a 3-minute opening statement by congressman cantor. >> thank you very much. i want to thank-you and all the posts for tonight's event. very much appreciated. there is no doubt we are in troubled times in america and here in virginia. the employment rate, the percentage of americans of the job is at its lowest level in 30 years. the number of americans in poverty and on food stamps is

the highest it has ever been. families here and that seven district are under a lot of stress. when i think about what that means that think about the single working mother who may be here in this county a couple of miles from here and ask myself, what is she thinking? what is she going to say tonight when she talks to kids in the bed. i can tell you. she has a job right now and is one of the lucky ones but is having difficulty making it through the month. she may want to go to community college or college it tastes better skills to another job. the prospects just aren't there. i think that her challenge represents a challenge for all this. tonight you're going to hear from my opponent and from he two very different visions of how we would address the challenges of the working mom is facing and to vases that will

take us to what i believe are two very different futures in america. one path leads to higher taxes, more regulation, less jobs and more dependency. the other path leads to lower taxes. less regulation. more jobs, more success and more opportunity. i support cutting taxes for small business men and women to help them create and retain more jobs whereas my opponent supports raising taxes on small businesses which will mean fewer jobs. i support a moratorium on new red tape and regulation except for the safety and health of the public until the unemployment levels come down. my opponent has said that he supports more regulation that will end up meaning less growth and less jobs. i oppose a obamacare and want to

repeal it and replace it with patient centered health care reform. my opponent supports a obamacare and says it is working but even wants to expand on it. these are some of the differences that you will hear tonight. i think the chamber for having asked. i look forward to a robust debate on the issues facing the voters. [applause] i am a husband, father, soldier, small businessmen and lawyers. i am mostly brought to be an american in virginia. you're going to hear some things about me. i don't want to spoil the surprise. may say some things about me. he may say i am an obama puppet.

more than he does i disagree with my party and believe that insurance companies should not deny people health coverage because they have pre-existing conditions. i also think that as a first step to get our fiscal housein order read to cut spending. there are certain vantage of commons and i think are important. i think that does not make me someone who believes or is a big spender. you may call me that. i also think we need to cut the increases in medicare cost, none of which would impact the benefits themselves. may say that i am in favor of cutting 716 billion, but there are ways to do that without cutting benefits. you voted for the same cuts except he wants to privatize medicare. i am seeking to go to a place called washington which is not

honest but a place where everybody place the blame game which means that all of the democratic leaders think that all the problems are caused by the republicans and dollar republican leaders think of all the problems are caused by the timber crops. ladies and gentlemen, as you already know, those with and without stickers, these are among republican and democratic problems. these are american problems. the center that we address this serious fiscal and other problems that face us in this country the sooner we can get the common-sense solutions. as you already know i am not a professional politician. i take a second seat to no one in my devotion to this country and my commitment to do the right thing i served 30 years in the united states army on active duty and as an active reservists i did it because it was the

right thing but i also think it was the right experience. 80 percent of the people never served in the military. by the way our veterans deserve much more to get their benefits and corporations that send our jobs across mortar to get special tax incentives through our tax code. thank you for inviting me and thank you for being here. [applause] one of the biggest issues facing the country today is the impending fiscal cliff. how they propose navigating the debate to create greater investment, new jobs, and less complicated taxes.

>> the last thing our economy needs. i've would support the east tension of the a existing cash rates for your and allow us to go ahead and reform the tax code we need to bring rates down and make sure that the tax cut is simple and fair for all and close this special interest the polls. i also think that the fiscal cliff as a lot to do with the spending in the increased borrowing that is a company but the spending. i had the opportunity last year trying to modernize the postal service of this country and to modernize the federal pension system. these tens of minutes, i think

we can come together and hopefully when we get the selection-all agree to sit down and finally resolve them. for the last two years it has been difficult to try and get both sides to come to say, hey, we want to solve these problems. >> i heard this fiscal clef many times. washington speak. this is the second with all due respect to the question. the first bomb was last year, and then we had the super committee meeting after the debt ceiling talks ended after mr. kantor led those talks in june of last year. the congress decided we will agree on the sequester of funds which rare now facing, and that is the fiscal cliff. let's be specific. a congress led by this man to my left to decide that they would rather keep the can down the road until continue the cuts for another year so that we have to wait another year to do what we have to do which is making the cuts. ..

>> now we want to make it permanent remap we have to reform the taxes. but i have heard that before. and mr. eric cantor and others in his party. it is time to get action. which means that we look at the tax code, you keep some of the middle-class and working people

come the 500,000 or less, let them pay their fair share. let's get our spending and taxes in order. we do not have balance, and everybody knows it. >> congressman cannon. >> personal, it does have to do with taxes. this book with these attacks breaks going away. the reason why the sequesters in places because frankly the president would not agree to the kinds of spending cuts that mr. powell says he's for, the president wouldn't go along with the spending cuts and insisted that we put in place a sequestered. and then the failure of the committee to do anything, congress had a duty. and we have the ability to substitute. to make sure that they do not impact our national security. we all know that virginia security, security doves are

from the defense industry. which is the imposition of a sequestered. again, it is time for all of us to sit down and talk we come on the house i have continued to put forth solution the do not aggregate that economy. yes, we want to make taxes low. we don't want to raise. >> moderator: what do you think we overspending? powell: that would be social security, medicare and medicaid. the defense budget, coming from the side, the defense budget is

bloated. bigger difference than what 25 other countries have. it doesn't matter. the people who are at risk because of our national security or against our national security are nonstate actors. they are called terrorists, and those are the people that pursued after 9/11. to say that we need to keep it at this level is just ludicrous. that doesn't mean that we need to lose hundred 60,000 jobs or however many that mr. canter talks about. that what it does mean is that at first he supported a sequestered and then he didn't. it is the blame game. it is mr. eric cantor's problem. what we need to do is take a helpful and look at all the outsourcing. there is a lot that we need to address and we need to make sure that we are not sending contracts to people like that. we need to make sure that the defense defense department can't do it, the defense department should be able to support it.

i think that it can come as a part of the defense department for 30 years. they don't need help from all the contractors. these are bloated contracts the need to be modified and this is one of the reasons why we have a spending problem. if we just a problem with the outsourcing and we then we will address a lot of the problems that keep us here this clip that we are going to fall off in the new year. >> moderator: congressman cannon. cannon: yes, let me respond to that. mr. powell said that he is not for the sequestered her in now he is for defense cuts come let me show you the size and magnitude of that sequester that sequester will take us to the point where we have to rethink whether he can be a global power and that is america, the global leader. we will have the smallest ground force winds 1940, the smallest baby since world war i and frankly we will have the smallest taxes and fighter force in the history of our country. that is what the sequester will do. and i told you how that came about. in order to avoid that, but to live by this fiscal discipline

-- that is what has all been about. how we managed on the debt and deficit so that we can stop paying more of our tax dollars to the interest burden that is on us and will be on our children. mr. powell has suggested several times tonight he wants to raise taxes. raise taxes on small-business people and i will ask going back to the assumption right now, we have a journal economy. we want to help people. how do you help that single mother, the working family, how do you help them? you help them and creating more jobs and opportunities. you do not by allowing small-business people to have it a little easier and get government out of the business of making it so difficult. that is why support a moratorium and new regulations so that you can allow for a small business and entrepreneurs to start to invest in. we want to be investing in our future and not paying more and more taxes -- tax dollars to interest debt of the past. that is what we need to do. we need to have a forward-looking agenda that is progrowth and is not burdening

business. you have hurt again, mr. powell say that he is not for voting with his party all the time, and i asked him whether or not he thinks that obamacare is the regulation that he supports. and he has certainly said it enough times over the last year. that, too, is harming businesses. >> moderator: mr. powell. powell: he supported last year come you don't support it now, all it takes is sitting down with the opposite party and coming up with a list of things that need to be cut. it is very simple. by the way, you are always talking about small businesses. i am a small business man and i don't pay anymore taxes and i don't want small businesses to pay anymore taxes. it's about what's good for the country. it's good for the country is to reform the tax is taxes that you complain about all the time. we look at bowles-simpson, which was a bipartisan effort to. we had never intended to bring

anything before the congress which was reflected. you will see it as all the presidents fault, but it's not. you are the leader of the congress. you have to do these things and you are not. >> moderator: mr. cantor, let's talk about the fiscal cliff. business tax rates and rates such as the taxes on investment income. one approach endorsed by mitt romney calls for the lowering of individual rates and broad support in the elimination and reduction of existing tax exemption. on the other hand, letting these tax cuts expire on individuals and families making $200,000 in $250,000. what do you think is the best approach to individual tax rates that can help grow the economy and actually reduce the deficit?

cantor: we do need to make sure that we are not raising taxes in this country. what's good for the country is to create jobs. back in the how we help others and get going again. that is how we get tax revenues into the federal government to help manage that data. so we don't want to raise taxes, but yes, we want to reform taxes. we want government conference of reform. we have a corporate tax rate that is the least competitive in the industrialized world. what does that mean? that means where companies are looking to locate or relocate, it is not always attractive to locate here because we are the highest tax locale. so we need to bring the corporate tax rate down and we need to make sure also that we change the very peculiar rarity and tax law, which forces american multinationals that mr. powell does not like, we need to make sure they don't pay taxes twice if they are operating abroad. he was suggesting that perhaps

that is giving them a tax rate. but of course, we have a system that ties one hand behind the back of our american based multinationals. we want them here, they create jobs. they would do well overseas, they will create more jobs here at home. similarly, we have to do the same with individuals. the overwhelming number of businesses filed, 95%, file as individuals. and they pay their taxes at individual rates. subchapter asked. in order to make sure that they come down, we have to do some reform and make some tough decisions of how we're going to close the loopholes. the problem is the president and his party have said, tax reform for starts with tax increases. there is a disagreement on that. mr. powell is right, that

disagreement -- that is what this election is about. how do you create more jobs, you help small-business people by giving them a tax break, they can keep more money, put it to the bottom line, make higher wages, and expand jobs and opportunities. >> moderator: mr. kyl? powell: i vastly between the blame game analogy and the politics i keep hearing from mr. cantor. tonight it was all about taxes. some of it talks about the small businesses and so forth, and just let me tell everybody here and the people looking at this, he never talks about working people. he only talks about businesses. because, as he would say, and as people who believe his ideology without tax would say, business is the only thing that creates jobs, people are just waiting

for someone to call and say, i want to work for you. how about taxes and tax incentives and tax cuts that are just trying to put bread on the table. how about the student was working three jobs and has a 50,000-dollar job while the ryan budget cut the pell grant in the amount the she can get and you vote against cutting the interest for those loans. where is the interest and to paraphrase springsteen, yes, small businesses my employee and the people at work and their husbands and wives, these people are suffering. i see them all the time, what is happening in this country since 1980 is that the top 1% of our population that controls the 7% of the wealth we now have 1% of the population and this is not class warfare, this is fact. it controls 2425% of the well. there is something wrong with

that disparity. all the economy see it, and that means that yes, we do need to have tax reform and we have to distribute it fairly. the people that make the most have to pay their fair share to be blessed to live in this wonderful land we live in. that's the way that i look at it. [applause] >> moderator: okay, mr. cantor, one minute. cantor: what is unfair is that so many people are out of work. i don't think that's what most americans believe. what most americans believe is that we all ought to have a fair shot at earning our success. we should all have that opportunity. yes, too many people, social economics, 20% at the bottom of social economics scale -- they don't have that third shot of going to earn success.

and we need to do a lot of things to help the reform our public school system and give these individuals the tool that they can get on the ladder of success. it is about income mobility. it is not as mr. kyl suggests, income redistribution that somehow we in washington have to decide who gets what. [applause] >> moderator: we have a rule about applause. congressman cantor, your question? cantor: mr. powell, we are facing some of the worst economic times of our lifetime. people are out of work and they are purging. we are trying to deal with the deficit in the trillions of dollars and looking for ways to cut it. however, you say on your website that if he were elected, on your first day in congress, he would introduce legislation to make campaigns publicly funded.

through our first asking congress to increase the deficit and take money from other important programs, or to raise taxes to pay for political campaigns. do we have more pressing issues than to create a government welfare program for politicians? >> moderator: mr. kyl? powell: that's a great question. [laughter] actually, i don't think it's a great idea. but based on the corporate welfare that you are receiving him in order to run your campaign, it has to be better than that. elisa comes from the people and not from the corporation. cantor: thank god for the first amendment, they got the disclosure that we have. it is almost obscene.

they do that because they want him to vote the way they want them to vote. powell: the reason i seem passionate is that i am. it's more of for the people. the people that i've i talk to and have seen from our system, especially citizens united is obscene. the most destructive opinion that has ever been issued within our political system. yes, i believe as an alternative to this obscene process that we have whereorporations pay for both and he gets to vote against his own people because of somebody from a firm on wall street says we want to keep last needle out of we don't want to divide the investment banks, look at what happened in 2008. we have a person who supports the very barbarians, the very parasites who caused the meltdown of this country in 2008. he strips this down, the

political intelligence provision. it is designed to help people who come to washington to find out what they need to find out folks in washington dc or new york. even chuck grassley from his own party says that he is carrying the water kowalski and that has to stop. >> moderator: congressman cantor. cantor: you know, first of all, we have so many pressing issues. why in the world would somebody say that that is a priority for the first day in office, to put people into rack up the deficits of more and or impose new taxes to fund political campaigns. using your tax dollars to pay for political campaigns. no, i am not for that, and i think that is wrongheaded. i would also ask, what does that have to do with creating jobs or educating children? that has nothing to do with

that. i would ask you again, in the audience, to listen to what each of us is saying. there is nothing but insistence that everything is wrong, but no prescription on how to fix it comes from mr. powell. what i want to say that we need to help small businesses by lowering the taxes, make sure that regulation does not overtake the entrepreneurial spirit, the backlog of this country, and we have not gone to the discussion of obamacare yet, but that is of the utmost importance if we want to maintain the health care that we all know and make sure that others can have access to it. we want to make sure that that is repealed and replaced so that businesses are not burdened by that onerous law. >> moderator: mr. powell? powell: if you had not been given $620,000 back in the

campaign, maybe you would've voted with medicare part b, so that medicare could -- so that it could negotiate the price of medicare prescription costs instead of keeping a large profit going to pharmaceutical companies instead of medicaid and the veterans administration, who is able to negotiate. why? because that itself increases our deficit by almost $1 trillion. you talk about the spending we can cut, maybe we can negotiate more with these companies that pay you not to vote the way you vote. maybe we can have more money for our infrastructure and schools and teacher pay and police officers. that is what we need. it is not about regulation. when i started my law firm and other business, i was not looking at regulation, i was looking at how to make a profit. that is what small business people look at. they say let's do it. that is the way american entrepreneurial spirit is. you are so far removed from reality because no man think that you know what a small business is.

>> moderator: mr. powell, a question for senator eric cantor powell: i was going to ask about shorting the u.s. treasury bonds or why you carved out the stock act or why you took $5 million from a certain company, but i thought it would ask a personal note. this is for my son. last year during the budget standoff that threatened to shut down the federal government, in the event of a shutdown, at the same time, he voted to ensure that members of congress get paid. at the same time, we voted to stop paying men and women that

were combat in afghanistan. cantor: let me just say, personal, that is not true. all of that is not true. again, we have got to make sure we are with the facts here. you can go on your personal attack or you want, but again, it's not doing anything to create a job or bring down the deficit. powell: can you answer the question? cantor: if you think about it, that is what is wrong in washington. name-calling, personal character assassination, it doesn't get us anywhere. and it actually makes the job problems a lot more difficult. to the point you are trying to ask about, on military pay, nobody, and nobody ever wants to deny the pay to our men and women in uniform, and frankly,

that is what is part of this sequester as well. we have to make sure that we live up to our obligation. without them, we would not be here. i thank you for your military service, wayne, and for your son for what he's doing for all of us. that does not go unnoticed, and we are very appreciative of it. but i can tell you i can tell you -- in the house just this year we have actually increased the veterans administration budget by 4%. unemployment is higher in the bedroom community than the community a whole.

we have troops here in the richmond area with the dmv and others who have collaborated. these are the kinds of things that we can get the veterans back to work once they come back from the service. >> moderator: mr. powell? powell: as expected, you did not answer my question. that is all all right. i think we already know the answer. however, one of the things that needs to be corrected as he voted against a lot of the veteran acts. when you talk about how you help the veterans, that is just not true. you voted against extending some of the medical treatment for returning veterans. as for the suicide program, for every person killed in combat in afghanistan, and they're eating people who committed suicide every day in this country, 6500 ear, this is something that the congress, especially the house of representatives, which is the closest that people should be

addressing immediately instead of making sure that paul ryan or mitt romney's tax cuts for millionaires go through, you should make sure there's enough money to take care of the veterans. you have not in 12 years, except for paying for unfunded wars and you haven't for the last three or four years. you will just kick it down the line and pretending you supported. if you don't have uniform on come you don't know what it means. and you have not. >> moderator: mr. cantor? cantor: we are incredibly grateful for the service of your family and many others in the country. we want to help. we want to help those people who have given the ultimate in terms of fighting for freedom. but i want to correct something again. you're not listening. because we continue to try and address these for the veterans. what happens in washington, it often becomes a cut if it's not

as much of an increase. we know that. that is the problem with the spiraling of spending. it's about setting priorities. i can assure you that our veterans and the defense department is a priority. it is constitutional in its priority. and we are going to live up to it. >> moderator: mr. powell, ep regulations will increase the cost of building coal-fired power plants. while the agency maintains these are critical to environmental quality, it's just that it will be economically impossible to build a new coal-fired power plant and actually could produce electric energy capacity. do you support the aca's new rules and regulations? and do you believe that mine coal is going to play a role in the future? powell: first of all, i don't know the regulations you are talking about, but i'll take

your word for it. we need renewables. that is the wave of the future. everybody knows that this is one of the 10 hottest years of the last 13 years. i don't happen to believe the climate is not changing. it is changing. we have to do whatever we can to save the planet. we have to ensure that we have clean air. of course we do. there are so many emergency air quality problems, i can even listen. i do believe that we have to look at the regulations that hurt the coal industry as much as they said they have. but we have one of the best fields right off the coast for wind farms. why are we trying to invest our money in wind farms?

why are we not doing what we know we can recycle and reuse? the days of the fossil fuels are numbered. whether we look at what's happening in the military or not. we have national security issues related to what we have, and we will ultimately have national security issues with regard to access to call. in beijing, china, where they use a lot of coal,, because there is so much lucian. we have to be able to keep the clean air to breathe. we have keep clean water. we need to look at the regulations and i think we have to be regulated to keep our cleaner. >> moderator: congressman cantor cantor: let me start with a somewhat of a rebuttal. first of all, if you are looking

at cool is the most affordable overtime in terms of generating electricity, a carbon tax is going to take this. we are interested in the competitiveness of america as a place to do business. one of the advantages that we have is the indigenous resources, the fossil fuels that we have to help afford low cost energy than anywhere else in the world, practically, that is a real cost advantage for us and our manufacturing base and yes, to create jobs. so you heard mr. powell talk a lot about that. he did not mention how you go and leverage off of the business resources and then he talked

about offshore, but he wants for wind farms offshore. this administration has said that it is impossible for us to do. because it creates jobs and that helps produce energy security for us here in the united states. the bottom line, the epa is off base. it is lopsided in its regulations and just a few weeks ago we saw the byproducts of that, publicly traded, fortune 500 company, they chose virginia to locate here. they are laying off 400 jobs in virginia because of epa regulations. the number one issue is job creation by the kind of energy creation that you have heard tonight. >> moderator: mr. powell? powell: some people heard john f. kennedy talk about going to the moon.

we are out of place in history that we need to be thinking about traveling and utilizing renewables. this is a milestone in our history. we cannot use the same old methods of extraction. compares drilling oil to putting a whim. we can produce energy, if this country could be as dedicated to renewables, we could invest well. by the way, europe is doing it, china is doing it, why are we not doing it? we can employ up to 4 million people. when you talk about creating jobs, if we could convert our systems, we can employ many more people than we can even imagine. it takes imagination and thinking out of the box and talking to people. we are only talking about the old and not the new. >> moderator: congressman cantor, almost all republicans have called for the repeal and replacement of obamacare for the

affordable care act. preventing insurance companies from rejecting individuals with pre-existing connections, removing the lifetime cap on benefits and allowing children to remain on their parents health care until they are 26 years old tend to be broadly popular. the legislation was repealed and replaced. do you favor keeping or mandating these provisions enacted the 31st of all, let me tell you why we need to repeal and replace obamacare. the affordable care act, as it is officially known, these are tax hikes that affect small businesses that will have to pay out the money to uncle sam and not be able to pay for the creation of jobs. number two, over one half trillion, and mr. powell has already referred to the $700 billion that it took out of medicare. the reason why i oppose the way it was taken out of medicare is because obamacare takes it out of the very popular programs that mr. powell does mention,

medicare part d. one of the most successful programs that we have had that has actually come and contrary to his, come in under budget. but it also goes and takes money out of medicare advantage, something that the theaters are particularly fond of. but yes, we have to create a system where people can choose their own health care. none of us, and i certainly don't approve or support insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. we can make sure that that doesn't happen. in a much more cost effective way, by establishing if they are and already there, and funding high-risk pools or reinsurance pools at the state level. we can have competition that the best way for a patient to have a kind of health care coverage that he or she wants is to be able to leave their insurance company and go to the next. but right now, there is not enough of that. we can create that through cross

the line producing. we also need to make sure that we keep the lawyers out of the emergency room. coming from two lawyers, we need to cut down the frivolous lawsuits. because the cbo, the congressional budget office says that that will save over $50 billion. so we can do this and we can maintain the kind of benefits that bob spoke about so that people can have that kind of health care that they want and not what washington tells them. >> moderator: mr. powell? powell: i can think back to my mother who is no longer with us. i can see her now going out and trying to get a competitive bid on getting her insurance after her $6500 voucher runs out in april or may every year. that is what your cuts one. that is what the ryan budget calls for and that is what you want. somehow, you are on your own, everybody, even people you have taken care of for 40 years or whatever. it doesn't work.

it is taking care of our own. medicare is a good program. the $716 billion that is in the affordable care act, i don't care. when you say you are going to repeal and replace, with what? with what? pixie dust politics. it is a magical mystery. by the way, the trillion dollar taxes, paid by the health insurance industry, which gives you -- it is also for the hospitals and also for the pharmaceutical people they give you $620,000. the people that will be paying these taxes. the reason that the affordable care act, and it's not perfect, i don't like the mandatory provisions, however, we need to sit down, we, meaning after i am there and you are gone, we need to make sure that we keep the rest of the affordable care act,

pre-existing, remove the cap, and i have some stories about that. but i don't have time. i know some people that are employed, because they can stay on their parents policy until they are 20 searchers will. because of the policies he supported in early 2000, which resulted in a million job losses in this country. you cannot run on that record. you have to run on what you did and where are all these jobs. >> moderator: congressman cantor. cantor: first of all, he spoke about her 80-year-old mother passed away. the portable direct is what we are talking about and not medicare. medicare changes would not even affect an 80-year-old senior because we make sure that everyone 55 years and older are held harmless. what i would tell you is that you say that those taxes are not paid by working people, the

congressional budget office indicates that 80% of those paying the taxes under obamacare, because they didn't have insurance approved by the government, because remember that mandate that you say you don't like, but you do like obamacare, that requires them to have health care the way washington says. 80% of those make an income level that equates to about $90,000 per household of four. again, this is not being paid and it's not a mythical corporation that he don't seem to care for. it's paid for by working people. that is why these taxes are no good and obamacare needs to go. [applause] >> moderator: hold on, please. >> mr. powell, congressman cantor mentioned the defense industry. every analysis that i have seen has defense cuts contained in

sequestration has the potential to harm the virginia economy. what is your strategy to deficit reduction that will not have negative impacts. powell: you are correct, however, the way to avoid that, personal, as indicated in my other answer, we need to look at what the impact is in this day and every state. as everyone knows, virginia is very dependent upon the defense industry. i was here and to every military post in the state. however, i don't we will have that impact as severely as it needs to we take a scalpel and not an act, which means that you could cut those sequestered funds and i think there is actually only 21 billion that has to be cut this year. you can look at aspects of the defense industry that are not located in virginia, and that is what a congressman who works with people of the state does to help the working people of the state avoid losing their jobs. as you go to these committees and you go to the department of defense and it helps to know something about the department

of defense to know what needs to be cut. my last military tour was in 2011. some of whom shouldn't been working, some contractors never should've been taking any kind of money from our government and they were earning two or three times when i was earning. there has to be an audit and i am in favor of an audit of the department of defense. there are areas that we can cut. but i don't think the ultimate result of that, i hear that there will be some magical meeting before the end of the year. and i would say, since the congress has been 2.5 months in the last three, obviously it's not a big priority for mr. eric cantor. he was on vacation for five weeks in august. if this is an urgent issue, and it is so, by the way, 100 years is just not enough. you have to sit down, you have to look at the calculus. you have to look at the programs, you have to stay a

scalpel and couple you don't need and i don't think those results are having a congressman does what he says he will do. >> moderator: congressman cantor. cantor: he knows good and well that this is not true that i am for a sequestered. he knows that the president insisted of the assertion into the debt ceiling so this country would not go into default last august. we were put into a position where there is no other choice because the president didn't want to go along with actually beginning to address the real deficit issue, which is health care entitlement. again, trying to solve problems, it's very difficult right now in washington. we all know that. the president said the only way you're going to do that is through sequestered. he then proceeded to really be absent from the discussion, the discussions that went on in capitol hill. that committee was unable to resolve the problem. what we did is went and said the house is too important and i went over, i just visited the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and i asked him what it

means, what does the defense sequester mean, not just for virginia, but for the national security of our country. and he said that you really have to rethink the nature of a superpower. because we do not have the resources any longer to have the perspective of working globally in her homeland. it is a very scary thing. and it ought to not go through, and we ought to do it responsibly and replace the cut. i am hoping that we can get it done. now, the president supports the sequester and i know that mr. powell has said he will not back away from supporting barack obama. so here he is saying that he doesn't support it, but he has said repeatedly that he supports proper vomit. this is the question here. we have to listen to what he is saying to what mr. powell has said for the last eight to 12 months, these personal attacks about congress meeting and not meeting. but the fact is, i don't think mr. powell understands what

being a congressman is about. you do your best work when you're at home with your constituents, and to go into business and visit small business people and you begin to understand the problems because washington is increasing the difficulty and they are going about their lives. the job of a congressman is to understand that and see how we can make life work again. small businesses and families across this district and throughout the state and country. and again, -- again i would ask you to pay attention to the inconsistencies that is being talked about here in this hour, and that which he is representing over the course of the last eight to 10 months. >> moderator: mr. powell, you have one minute. powell: let me say that the biggest danger to national security is that you continuing

to be the senior or majority leader of the congress. you are obstruction and your dysfunction was named by moody's and s&p and even bob gates -- he said that congressional dysfunction was a national security issue. look in the mirror, because you coster. let me also say that the sequester is not the issue here. the issue is the blame game. the issue is you telling this audience but it's not the congress, you're right, i've never been in congress, but i will be soon. but the congress did this and do that because obama did this and that. but let me tell you something. the constitution says that congress establishes the budget. so for you to stand here and say to you that you did not vote for this questor when you get -- this is not magical thinking. this is reality. i am not attacking you. i am describing you. it is a very difficult process. but i am trying. but you supported it and now you don't. there's a good reason why

because you need to sit down and talk. >> moderator: let me ask one final question before we get to the concluding remark. that issue is one issue that has been on the virginia business community and the transportation infrastructure in virginia, virginia has been blessed to be called busted for doing business for a number of magazines for 10 or 15 or 20 years now. one of the issues that has arisen recently, they said we weren't doing enough for the transportation infrastructure. congressman cantor, is there anything that the federal government can be doing to assist virginia in trying to ensure that this transportation infrastructure states modernize and we don't have the kind of gridlock in the roads that we are developing in the state. cantor: first of all, i think that the federal government ought to get out of the way. we ought to let virginians spend their dollars way they see fit.

i have voted consistently to see if we can do that. to empower the folks in richmond and make good decisions at the local level and state level that need to be made. furthermore, i think that there are many restrictions on the purchase of dictation of straights when it comes to the war in iraq. we ought to be providing more states with more flexibility, whether it has to do with the participation of public or private partnership or the ability of the bombing, there are many restrictions of the government in washington seems to think it's a good idea and ends up being counterproductive with a state like virginia that has all the potential in the world, but being held back because of the infrastructure shortcomings. so yes, there is a lot we can do. >> moderator: mr. powell. powell: you know, you did not

like the stimulus that the president initiated. however, i can't remember where i read it, some of those stimulus funds for the rapid transit system up to northern virginia, i may be wrong about that -- cantor: you are wrong about that. powell: welcome you know, we can check this out. i let you finish. let me finish. in any case, you don't like government. you should just resign and i will take over. [laughter] needless to say, government does have a role and people all over the district who did not, in orange county and culpepper county, real people, human beings, who couldn't get a connectivity for their cell phones or their computers work. they can call anybody. people who could not get help because of the infrastructure and roads.

these are things that have helped to create roads. back when the marginal rate was 94% in this country. [inaudible] what we need to do, the government does have a macro view and duty to talk to the state, see what the states need, and if they have enough tax revenue, which of course, they don't have now, but i think we have the lowest since 1950, or it least it's been a long time. there are things we can work with the state. the federal government to work with the state. giving the state the power to use the money the way they want to. i agree that the federal government needs to get out of the way. but providing funds, that is what the federal government should do. remember the nsa program and the trip to the moon. these are all federally funded

programs. again, i would just say that you mischaracterized my statements once again. i said that i am for a block grant. i think that the state ought to have control. i'm not saying that washington should give the state the money. the states should have the money from washington. transportation is a governmental function, and yes, we all believe that it is a jeffersonian tradition of a limited government, and that's what we're trying to get you. and so you mentioned the lowest tax revenue and you didn't say since one, but i will tell you that there is a reason for that. the reason is because we have a lackluster economy. not enough economic activity. the wool discussion that we have had the night comes back to that. how are we going to create more economic activities. we do so by making america more competitive in the lowering taxes, giving a much more sensible regulatory environment, and yes, by repealing obamacare. these are the burdens that we

have to remove. >> moderator: now it is time by the closing statements. by the order of the coin toss, congressman cantor goes first. cantor: certainly think that what he said tonight is a robust discussion. and frankly, it has been peppered with what is wrong with politics today. and that is a wash of personal attacks, attacks on my family. as we saw, disregard for honesty and truth. the thing is, none of these negative taxes do anything to create a job, do anything to educate a child, or do anything to bring down the deficit. but attacks and character assassinations, frankly, they make it a lot harder to solve problems and compromise and to sit down and actually get something done. but i think that mr. powell, you underestimated the voters of the

seventh district and i have had the privilege of representing this district for almost 12 years. i can tell you that we are honest and hard-working people, and i have every confidence that the voters will reject your negative campaign. but i want to end this debate where we began. this election about the future and what kind of country we want to be. now, i have asked about lower taxes and regulations that were produced more jobs. if we need to raise taxes, we need the government coming in and imposing relations on businesses. but the fact is that we all know it did not come because the government spent more money. it came because individuals and entrepreneurs came to this country, they committed their own time, talent, hard work, and money. they built their businesses. that's what we have to focus on. in closing, i would like to reference a small business owner down the street, a restaurant

owner, doug elliott. that is his restaurant. the thing is, he, just like the waitress who works for him, the coke that is in his kitchen, one thing they all want together is they want more customers walking in through the doors because more diners mean more business and tips and wages for the waitress and the coke, and it means more compensation so that you can hire more people, increase wages and that is what it is all about. that is what this election is all about. it is about who can create an environment that we can see more economic activity with, and more jobs. that is what this is about, and i think it is very clear the two visions and the choice of the voters will have in november. again, i want to thank you and i want to thank the chamber for hosting us tonight.

[applause] >> moderator: mr. powell? powell: i didn't have a lot of time at the beginning, but i want to thank everyone for being there. the first time that mr. cantor has debated. thank you for sponsoring us. you have heard a lot of washington speak tonight because he has had 12 years of practice. you haven't heard much about what happened prior to the normal course of low taxes. too much regulation, that is all mr. canter talks about. he didn't talk about underfunding medicare part b. the people he talks about their struggling to get their jobs, the people that i talk about, the people that i talk about in

last year and a half, the people that are struggling to make it are the people who lost their jobs because of the speculation, which you are to regulation that he supported cards. and the people, their mortgages, all of these things that people have suffered from, all the things that happen up to 2008 and the 8 million jobs that were lost, these are the things from which our country suffers. in addition to two wars, one of which we are still in. do you hear of low taxes, but we are in a war right now. everybody here knows that. lower regulations, lower taxes, i think if you can overcome the washington speech and buy into my comments in my righteous indignation, then i want your

support. twelve years is long enough. if you can't think of what mr. canter's congress comments were, you are not alone. thank you all, and have a good evening. [cheers] [applause] >> moderator: thank you. we would like to think of virginia chamber for hosting this event. let's have a round of applause for two candidates. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

>> when nations cheat in trade, and china has cheated, we have labeled them a currency manipulator. >> by the way, we have done the best we can in the last two years. >> watch the debate at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. on c-span2, the multi-camera version of the debate. following your reaction, calls, e-mails, and tweets, follows on c-span and c-span radio and online at c-span.org. the maxi the first presidential debate live on c-span. c-span radio and online at

c-span.org. watch and engage. coming up on c-span2, the libertarian party candidate gary johnson on obstacles facing a third-party candidate. and mitt romney in the campaign rally in denver, colorado. later, president obama joins supporters at a campaign rally in las vegas. >> arnie duncan is at the national press club on tuesday to discuss the state of american education. he will address changes over the last four years and look ahead. see it live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. next, look at the presidential campaign and libertarian party candidate, gary johnson. the former governor of new mexico talks about his view of the tea party system and obstacles for third-party candidates. from "washington journal", this is 40 minutes.

>> we are now with gary johnson, the former governor of new mexico. 1995 to 2003, the libertarian presidential nominee and gary johnson's first question, when you look at the major party candidate in this year's cycle, what is missing in the debate and dialogue and what you bring to the table? >> well, how about the truth, for starters, the notion that both obama and romney are arguing over who is going to spend more money on medicare when we need to have a raging debate and discussion on how we/medicare spending. i believe we will find ourselves in the midst of a monetary collapse as a result of borrowing and spending money to the tune of 43 cents of every dollar that we have spent. >> what is your prescription?

>> we took it from a fee-for-service model to a managed care model and hundreds of millions of dollars were saved, i believe, if the federal government would have block printed the state of new mexico 43% less money, done away with all of the strings in the mandate, that i could have effectively overseeing the delivery of health care to the poor. i think you apply that same template to medicare and give the federal government out of the health care business completely, give it to the states, in this case, block grants that balance expenditures, and that is how we are going to get out of it. giving it up to the states, 50 laboratories of innovation and best practices, that's exactly what we will have. fabulous success and horrible

failures, that is how we are going to find our way out of it. >> host: tran-sixes joining us from new mexico. he will be with us for about 40 more minutes. we have put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen as we take a look at the libertarian nominee in the rates overall. you can see the phone lines on the bottom of the screen. jerry johnson is a reason gallup poll that shows a split in the need for a third-party, pretty much -- what is your argument for third-party? >> guest: in this case, i'm going to argue that i am not the third that their choice, but i am the only choice. in this case, i am on the ballot and will be on the ballot in all 50 states. we are on the ballot in 47 states and the district of colombia, litigated and the in the other three. although there are other third-party candidates running

this cycle, none of them are going to come close to what i just said. that being said, where is the difference between the two? i am going to argue that we should not be in iran, we should get out of afghanistan tomorrow, marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right. let's end the drug war and legalize marijuana now. i would have never signed the national defense authorization act allowing for you and i as u.s. citizens to be arrested and detained without being charged. i think that his wife we fought wars. i never would've signed the patriot act. i think that homeland security is incredibly redundant. the tsa should not be the federal government. it should be airports and airlines, state municipalities, balance the federal budget now. i think that we all recognize the what we are doing is not sustainable and i think the day of reckoning is close when we

experience a monetary collapse, a monetary collapse is very simply when the dollars that we have in our pocket don't buy anything because of the accompanying inflation that is going to go along with borrowing and printing money to the tune of 43 cents of every dollar that we are spending. front and center our jobs. i'm going to be the only candidate advocating eliminating income tax, corporate tax, abolishing the irs, replacing all of that with one federal consumption tax, in this case, embracing the fair tax, i think that is really the answer to jobs, because in a zero corporate tax rate environment, if the private sector doesn't create tens of millions of jobs, i don't know what it will create to take tens of millions of jobs. all existing federal tax on all goods and services, ic manufacturing jobs walking back to the united states, given the zero corporate tax rate

environment. no, not even remotely close. they are arguing over who is going to spend more money on medicare. mitt romney says he wants to balance the federal budget and he wants to increase spending and remove the military. well, it does not add up and if we want to believe in the things that these guys are saying, then i guess we believe in the easter bunny and santa claus and by extension the tooth fairy. ..

>> mi6% would be a 10 then 18 and i would be the next president of the united states. >> host: you're on with gary johnson the libertarian nominee. >> caller: i saw your debate three months ago. but you nailed him to the wall. he looked stupid but it i am

reading about the commission and the democrats of the republican party the campaigns are similar but if you read the history of the trial of commission they are controlling both parties. that is scary. i respect your issues. you are knowledgeable. i wish there was more strength and voters for you. i wish you well when. >> guest: thank you. obviously a just a comment when they entered into the

republican race for the nomination i thought at a minimum would be hard to minimize two candidates on stage at the same time. i just found myself excluded in ways that was incredibly unfair. i grew up to believe everybody has the equal shake. it is manipulated and different from my experience running for governor of the mexico where the republican party was very inclusive and including be in all the debates and discussions to make me a part of the process the eventual nominee who would be stronger.

>> good morning. i just want to say thank you for writing. i was say ron paul support -- supporter i left then neocon party that is controlled. you are right on on all the issues especially on the war. u.s. hijacked.com a series of articles but is there a way, are you doing anything to get into the debate cycle

with obama and romney? >> host: there is a similar question with twitter. >> guest: i am excluded from the first debate. the commission that determines who gets into the debate is the presidential debate commission which is private made up of republicans and democrats with no interest to have a third voice on stage. we have filed three lawsuits to get me on stage based on other third party candidates but there does not seem to be much hope but we filed on antitrust grounds that had not been done before. >> host: how much does the debate matter? >> >> they are tantamount to be

having ed chance at winning. without a debate you can close the lid to win the election. is winning getting enough votes to cause one of the other two to give more than just lip service? potentially. this is a victory every single day. i am heartened by the fact there are so many people speaking with of broad brush stroke the majority of americans consider themselves fiscally responsible, as socially excepting. i am in their broad brush category so i don't think

democrats are good on civil liberties or republicans are good at dollars and cents. but it is not happening in either kill. >> host: a brief third party candidate john adams 1/6 point* six. ross perot 18 point* 9% and ralph nader received 2.7%. some call you the original tea party candidate. with an interview we did in "usa today" we were there and we will show the interview tonight it reflects on the tea party movement.

>> what are your thoughts with the tea party revolution? was it encouraging? >> it was interesting to see that have been. i was surprised. it had an interesting impact. that is not the solution but. >> it shows to everybody running for office and hopefully the american citizens. >> what do you think gary johnson and? >> told motion of dollars and cents initially was all about spending. but to talk about the occupied movement is about the inequality and right on.

crony capitalism is alive and well. and democrats the same way. the country doles out by adopting the fairfax we kick half of the issues in the end and then do away with the income-tax and loopholes and deductions. >> here is a comment, and this election cycle ross perot vs. obama getting second term? >> guest: in four states they put this to the question. divx no -- mexico and obama i take the boats away from obama and michigan i take them from romney.

a wasted vote is voted lonesome would you don't believe in. i will make a pitch everybody waste their vote on the and then i am the next president of the united states. based on my resume nothing suggests not only could i do the job but do a good job at it. >> go-ahead. >> caller: i appreciate with your debate with ron paul. the only other choice besides him it is you. they say the lesser of two evo is still evil.

we don't have the choice to go to for you. all of the promoting of the homosexual agenda. ron paul was the grandfather of the tea party. you are the only choice that we have. i appreciate you lending. thank you. >> guest: thank you. i would reiterate i do support marriage equality, i think it is constitutionally guaranteed with the civil-rights of the '60s. >> host: john is the independent. >> caller: mr. johnson mr. johnson, the only problem i have is about the tax issue.

our taxes have never been set up to be fair. originally for the rich to pay them majority of taxes in federal taxes and a working class or poor would pay the majority of there's of homeowners gomez city, and state taxes. my problem with a fair tax is we're on a fixed income. the states will have to have such a high tax rate because the federal government has such a low were one. if someone buys a refrigerator at $700 there

will be the $100 tax. that is the problem. the only when it will hurt are the people that are retired, disability, and the things like that. otherwise i am in completely in line with you. i voted for ron paul. i voted for paul brown. i cannot remember what year he ran. i voted for ross perot once. i am very open-minded better watch things closely. >> host: thank you for calling. gary johnson and the reaction? >> guest: by going to a

national consumption tax one federal national consumption tax is more fair. it is cost neutral over a short amount of time. a can of coca-cola sells $1 today within that is 23% of embedded tax federal tax that coca-cola pays common corporate tax, social security match, medicare, unemploymen t. all of that goes away. no more withholding from the paycheck. so security and medicare comes out of the proceeds. if you believe the existing tax out then they do not have to sell that at $1 anymore now they sell it at

$0.80. if you think they will continue to sell it at $1, it is free market and competition. coal is competitive. it will sell about $0.80 which is cost neutral. then to have a raging debate over how you implement one federal consumption tax. was never read tax we get to less of. today we tax them come and we're getting less of that. added score it is fair and would be terrific to have a discussion the best way to implement one federal consumption tax. the fair tax gets the debate

down the road. is the predate to deal that it is regressive? the very tax deals with that to give everybody $200 per month rebate check to allow us to pay the consumption tax up to the point* of the poverty level that avoidance being regressive. is that the best way? maybe not. but we should have of raging debate and discussion. >> host: of you were once more information on education. >> iger agreed but education is backwards. it does not say specifically. would you like to clarify your education policy? >> as governor of new mexico and was bolar outspoken end

on school choice. we need to bring competition to public education. what is the best things the federal government could do? to abolish the federal department of education established 1979 vendor to make carter is there anything since 1979 that suggest the department of education is value added? no. it gives each state $0.11 at of their dollar that they spend. but they tell you hear it is the list you have to accomplish but to do so it costs $0.16. nobody recognizes it cost money to take federal money. get the federal department

of education out. get the federal government out. give education to the states. 50 states of laboratories of intervention -- invention we will have some failure that is avoided but 50 different laboratories, i would suggest we would come up with incredibly innovative ways to deliver education in this country. >> host: our guest is joining us from santa fe former governor of new mexico served as a republican in 1995 through 2003. currently the libertarian presidential nominee nominee -- nominee on the ballot all states challenging mission again oklahoma and pennsylvania. are you confident?

>> oklahoma seems to be the worst. i hope everybody watching from any of these three states, the barriers put a place a to the detriment of anyone watching. why not have more voices discussing as opposed to fewer? it is really hard. is a stacked deck to get on the ballot in all 50 states that we still believe we will achieve. if anybody thinks the system is fair, it is not. >> host: how much money have you raised and spent? >> guest: probably 2.5 million dollar range. that is amazing. right now i pull at 6%.

if i had $1 billion i think that would be the next president. >> host: now from wisconsin the independent callers. >> caller: i have been deaf and since chris hayes introduced you. you have voters in wisconsin. i tried to show you off to whoever atm. i don't expect to get the exposure that you need. >> they are freezing him out just like they did with ralph nader when he tried to be president. the more people that hurt him him gary johnson is real change but what do you think about all street and the present industrial complex?

that our dollars will not be worth $0.70. >> i do see a monetary collapse looming. right now the federal reserve treasury is printing money. the fed gives that to the bank's the banks are not giving it to you or i buying of treasurys and a closed loop with no risk. this is not fair. absolutely not fair. the inequities go on and on. could get the kids you tell me with the second part of the question? >> we lost him.

>> host: let's try nevada. >> caller: republicans and democrats are on different sides of the same totem poll. you will get the same outcome. to vote to for you is the change that we can believe been. >> guest: i will offer a prediction if from eight or obama are elected a real fighter sells with a heightened police state that should be pulled back. will find ourselves in a continued state of war war, military intervention resulting in hundreds of millions of amaze that would

not otherwise exist then romney or obama it is elected, we will continue to borrow and spend money in ways that are not sustainable. we're looking at a monetary collapse. we cannot escape the mathematics. >> host: what is your take on congress? what would you do to motivate them next to -- do nothing congress? you just call both parties corrupt. >> i'd like a libertarian president would challenge democrats what they are supposed to be good that. get out of afghanistan to not ball my ran. end the drug war, a marriage

equality, repeal the patriot act, national defense authorization act. this is what democrats are supposed to be good at. step up to the plate and the libertarian president challenging of dollars and cents and his budget plan will balance in 28 years incumbent on the growth? nobody believes it. everybody in this stance as long as it is mutual be will suck it up and fix it. we're led to believe we do nothing and we will fix it? no way.

growth comes out of nowhere? we have zero% interest rates that are stagnant. auditing? i love to turn on the light to find out what is on their balance sheet. how much are they buying? how many assets? whenever they buy inflate its and in this case by a nub equities and a treasury's. if they were not nobody else would. >> host: at an earlier caller one point* was speaking to foreign policy. you spoke about some but how would you describe your own foreign policy? >> we should involve

ourselves diplomatically. we should be "the shining" beacon on the hill. the military interventions we replace one dictator for another money is spent time dictators. not people from the other countries. we're finding the insurgents in syria and one cut -- one-quarter of those are all kie? to do this in afghanistan? did it we bankroll osama bin laden? we have not learned anything. military interventions make enemies to the united states from people that to are

affected the drone strikes? yes we did the target but we wipe out another quarter block and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians that we are there to help? we continue to make more and more and remains. it is no surprise the unrest in the middle east are occurring. get out of the embassies now. why do we give them a target to demonstrators that are just looking for a target? that is not week it -- weakness we just have common sense. where is the common sense? >> host: the next call from new york. >> caller: good morning. governor johnson i will be voting for you although i have some differences.

we have to get rid of the term third-party. it gets rid of the aleutian -- jiggy is the solution beyond the two parties. on continental europe if somebody makes ballot access like in italy, every single-day whatever their ideas are the television stations give time, three times per day to every political party and one of their candidates. maybe not federal law but this should be one you love your nation and inform the people running for political office t one as a statement

i could not agree more. >> host: of the word from twitter. >> what your thoughts about trade war naturalistic protectionism? how much? [laughter] >> guest: i am not the tariff man. free-market. the criticism of the free-market for the most part criticize crony capitalism but the free-market really does work. the trade works. who benefits the levying any time we spend less money we benefit. who